NFL will add playoff team to each conference beginning this season.

[Battlelyon]

Oh that's rich, the irony.

“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

― Mark Twain

 

[SteelersPride]

More money can’t always buy happiness

But more money, more problems

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

I fully understand that it's all about the almighty dollar and pure greed is driving this thing but something is coming whether we like it or not because the owners want it and they have the power to implement it.
As far as I'm concerned, given the choice, the extra team in the play-offs is far better than a 17 game season with a bunch of neutral site games. And if a 12 or 13 win #2 seed can't beat that 9-7 or 8-8 team, well maybe they are a fraud anyway and didn't really deserve a bye in the first place.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I fully understand that it's all about the almighty dollar and pure greed is driving this thing but something is coming whether we like it or not because the owners want it and they have the power to implement it.
As far as I'm concerned, given the choice, the extra team in the play-offs is far better than a 17 game season with a bunch of neutral site games. And if a 12 or 13 win #2 seed can't beat that 9-7 or 8-8 team, well maybe they are a fraud anyway and didn't really deserve a bye in the first place.

As fans it's easy to paint the owners as greedy and unreasonable, but the NFL is a business and making money is the purpose behind any business. The more the better. It's America and we are a capitalist economy. Guess it's maybe the disingenuous PR that gets involved that rubs us wrong. Or maybe we just aren't being realistic about what the real purpose of the game is for both owners and players and want to believe it's the love of the sport that drives them. At one time that might be true, but once the sport became a money producer that all went out the window.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

So, the last 10 years the 7 seeds would be

8-8, 9-7

9-6-1, 8-7-1

9-7, 9-7

9-7, 9-7

10-6, 8-8

9-7, 10-6

8-8, 10-6

8-8, 10-6

9-7, 8-8

9-7, 10-6

8 win team: 30% of the time

9 win team: 45% of the time

10 win team: 25% of the time

 

[Brees#1]

Meh, we can bitch if we want but the owners are hell bent on adding games that matter so I would rather see this than a 17 game schedule. I think most of the players will agree to the trade off if it is indeed an either/or type of thing. Of course, now you have that 7 seed getting the 2 seed and often that 2 has to battle to the end of the season and needs the rest. Could possibly see some more upsets in the making.
Looking back to this past season, I think I would have enjoyed a Steelers/Chiefs match-up and a Rams/Saints rematch. I don't think it's worth anyone getting their panties in a bunch over if it does happen.

The Saints wouldn't have played the Rams. The Packers would have. I doubt the Saints even play their starters week 17 without a bye. The Rams would have probably beaten the Packers and there would be an NFC West NFCCG.

 

[Brees#1]

Just what we need.

Another seed for the suck ass Texans to get in the playoffs and justify keeping Butt Chin in charge.

"We made the playoffs again. It was a successful season. "

"The playoffs? Every team outside of Ohio makes the playoffs!"

If the Colts get their crap together this year, that may not be a possibility.

 

[Cedrique]

So, the last 10 years the 7 seeds would be

8-8, 9-7

9-6-1, 8-7-1

9-7, 9-7

9-7, 9-7

10-6, 8-8

9-7, 10-6

8-8, 10-6

8-8, 10-6

9-7, 8-8

9-7, 10-6

8 win team: 30% of the time

9 win team: 45% of the time

10 win team: 25% of the time

That's interesting. One way to look at it is if you want to make sure a 10-6 team doesn't get shut out of the playoffs, you have to take some 8-8 teams. And football is different from the other pro sports in that there is a much smaller sample size of games to go off. And it is the ultimate team sport, where teams often become better by the end of the season. So some of those 8-8,9-7,10-6 teams could be very good teams that had some bad luck throughout the season.

Also, if the unthinkable happened and an 8-8 team won the super bowl that would mean that they ended up 12-8 by winning 4 straight playoff games, which is 1/4 of the regular season. That would be the equivalent of a baseball team winning 14 straight 3 game series, probably all on the road. So that 8-8 team probably wasn't that bad.

 

[Battlelyon]

So, the last 10 years the 7 seeds would be

8-8, 9-7

9-6-1, 8-7-1

9-7, 9-7

9-7, 9-7

10-6, 8-8

9-7, 10-6

8-8, 10-6

8-8, 10-6

9-7, 8-8

9-7, 10-6

8 win team: 30% of the time

9 win team: 45% of the time

10 win team: 25% of the time

So most of the time another winning team, not one losing team. Talk about overreaction to this new playoff format, sounds good to me.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

So most of the time another winning team, not one losing team. Talk about overreaction to this new playoff format, sounds good to me.

A cursory glance at those teams and it's a lot of bad teams who rode the variance bus and absolutely tanked the year after. The Jay Cutler led Bears would've been the 7 seed like 2-3 times, IIRC.

Football is already kind of stratified. Granted the NBA is too, and they have 7 game series, but yikes to some of these teams.

 

[Battlelyon]

A cursory glance at those teams and it's a lot of bad teams who rode the variance bus and absolutely tanked the year after. The Jay Cutler led Bears would've been the 7 seed like 2-3 times, IIRC.

Football is already kind of stratified. Granted the NBA is too, and they have 7 game series, but yikes to some of these teams.

I think this should be it, no more extra teams, only one bye for the teams with the best record in their conference.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Random:

Number of times a team would've been the 7 seed under this system since 2003 (how far the standings go back on ESPN)

Steelers: 4

Vikings: 4

Bears: 2

Buccaneers: 2

Falcons: 2

Texans: 2

Titans: 2
----------------
Dolphins: 1

Jaguars: 1

Saints: 1

Chiefs: 1

Broncos: 1

Packers: 1

Browns: 1

Patriots: 1

Chargers: 1

Giants: 1

Cardinals: 1

Eagles: 1

Jets: 1

Ravens: 1

Lions: 1

Rams: 1

 

[CaptainStubing]

Random:

Number of times a team would've been the 7 seed under this system since 2003 (how far the standings go back on ESPN)

Steelers: 4

Vikings: 4

Bears: 2

Buccaneers: 2

Falcons: 2

Texans: 2

Titans: 2
----------------
Dolphins: 1

Jaguars: 1

Saints: 1

Chiefs: 1

Broncos: 1

Packers: 1

Browns: 1

Patriots: 1

Chargers: 1

Giants: 1

Cardinals: 1

Eagles: 1

Jets: 1

Ravens: 1

Lions: 1

Rams: 1

so, you're saying the steelers and vikings are big fans of this proposal....

 

[Anointed One]

Random:

Number of times a team would've been the 7 seed under this system since 2003 (how far the standings go back on ESPN)

Steelers: 4

Vikings: 4

Bears: 2

Buccaneers: 2

Falcons: 2

Texans: 2

Titans: 2
----------------
Dolphins: 1

Jaguars: 1

Saints: 1

Chiefs: 1

Broncos: 1

Packers: 1

Browns: 1

Patriots: 1

Chargers: 1

Giants: 1

Cardinals: 1

Eagles: 1

Jets: 1

Ravens: 1

Lions: 1

Rams: 1

Texans would've just added to their "Losses" in the postseason...

 

[Schmoopy1000]

I like it, gives more incentive to being the 1 seed

I disagree.
Means less meaningful games in the final week, which means more sitting players during the regular season.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I disagree.
Means less meaningful games in the final week, which means more sitting players during the regular season.

Won't team still be playing for seeding position? Also there would be more teams involved in the battle of making the playoffs and seeding. I'm not for the watering down of the league regular season in this manner, but can't agree with your statement.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

Won't team still be playing for seeding position? Also there would be more teams involved in the battle of making the playoffs and seeding. I'm not for the watering down of the league regular season in this manner, but can't agree with your statement.

in theory you'd be correct.
but honestly if they arent playing for a home game vs being away. I completely see them sitting their players.
So if they were already the #2 through 4 seed (division champs) or already the wildcard teams. Unless they are manipulating who they will play. It wont matter. A lot of coaches like the idea of sitting players before the playoffs.
When a team already locked up the division they were still playing for a bye.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

in theory you'd be correct.
but honestly if they arent playing for a home game vs being away. I completely see them sitting their players.
So if they were already the #2 through 4 seed (division champs) or already the wildcard teams. Unless they are manipulating who they will play. It wont matter. A lot of coaches like the idea of sitting players before the playoffs.
When a team already locked up the division they were still playing for a bye.

If it cut and dry which seed you are before the final regular season game then sure, but don't think it plays out that way usually. Chances are the division winners have similar records , that the final week is important. Three division winners in the NFC were 13-3 last year for example.

 

[RedSilverG]

I hope that this deal goes through. This will add more excitement to the post season!

 

[Tapey]

I disagree.
Means less meaningful games in the final week, which means more sitting players during the regular season.

I think there would be more meaningful games due to middle of the pack teams still being in it.